Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review

Panasonic's much-leaked Lumix DMC-GX7 is arguably the company's most enthusiast-focused mirrorless camera yet to hit the market. Back in 2011, Panasonic released the DMC-GX1 in a move to appease enthusiasts who grew more and more disappointed as the promising GF-series got smaller and simpler, with fewer controls in the GF2 and GF3 models. The GX1, however, seemed like an interim move, adding minor enhancements to the original GF1 design and changing the badge, while fans watched as Sony's NEX-7 and later the Olympus E-M5 offered more controls and sophisticated features, including a built-in EVF.

While few of the GX7's specifications stand out as revolutionary (aside, perhaps, from its built-in articulated electronic viewfinder), our impression was that it contains plenty of small tweaks and features sure to endear it the enthusiast crowd.

Key specifications

16MP Live MOS sensor

In-body image stabilization (works with any lens)

Front and rear control dials

Flip-up, 1024 x 768 pixel (2.3M dot equivalent) electronic viewfinder

3-inch tilting LCD

3-level focus peaking

1080 video at 60p/60i/24p in MP4 or AVCHD format

Built-in Wi-Fi with NFC

Magnesium-alloy frame

1/8000 second max shutter speed, 1/320th flash sync speed

Highlight and shadow curve adjustments

Built-in pop-up flash

Large contoured grip

It's hard to know whether to think of the GX7 as being a post-NEX-7 or a post-E-M5 camera - but to an extent that's the point: unlike the GX1, which appeared to be a rather-too-late, warmed-over GF1, the GX7 is a camera that has learned from the increasingly impressive cameras it will have to compete with.

So, despite Panasonic producing an extensive range of image-stabilized lenses, the GX7 incorporated in-body stabilization. This will be a welcome move for anyone hoping to use legacy lenses or any of Olympus's prime lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system. Combined with the 'focus peaking' manual focus aid that Sony re-introduced to its NEX cameras, it promises to make the GX7 one of the more capable options, when it comes to shooting with adapted lenses.

The GX7 is one of a surprisingly small number of mirrorless cameras to offer a DSLR-style twin-dial control system.

But that's not the full extent of the GX7's offerings for keen photographers - a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000th of a second and a flash sync speed of 1/320th suggest Panasonic is serious about appealing to enthusiast photographers. The GX7 is also in unexpectedly exclusive company when it comes to offering a DSLR-like twin-dial control system. There are several mirrorless cameras with two control dials, but remarkably few that make it easy to simply set one to control aperture or shutter speed, and the other to control exposure compensation, which makes the semi-auto Av and Tv modes enjoyable to shoot in.

Wi-Fi

As with most recent Panasonic models - including the G6 and GF6 - the GX7 features Wi-Fi with the option to use NFC to establish a connection and transfer photos simply by 'tapping' the two devices together. Like those other cameras, it allows you to connect the camera to Wi-Fi networks to download your images, or to push them to social networks, but our understanding is that Panasonic hasn't modified its rather labyrinthine setup system.

Much better executed is the behavior with smartphones, where an iOS or Android app can be used to take remote control over almost all the camera's settings. It's also fairly straightforward to connect to a smartphone and pull images off the camera if you want to push them out to social networks yourself.

Silent mode

The GX7 is also one of the few cameras we've seen to use its optional electronic shutter to offer an effective silent shooting mode for discreet shooting. The camera is limited to a sensitivity range of ISO 200-3200 in silent mode, and the flash, AF illuminator and all camera sounds are disabled when the mode is engaged. We were quite impressed with silent mode, several of us commenting that we would likely use it often.

Electronic viewfinder

The most immediately visible new feature of the GX7 is its flip-up electronic viewfinder. We've seen corner-mounted EVFs before, but this is the first built-in unit we've seen for a long time that articulates upwards, allowing for more flexible shooting. The viewfinder itself is built around a 1024 x 768-pixel LCD panel. This has become essentially the standard for high-end viewfinders, thanks to the 2.3M dot OLED finders in several Sony models, and the similarly high-res LCD used in the Fujifilm X100S / Olympus VF-4 viewfinder.

The Lumix GX7's flip-up electronic viewfinder is one of its most distinctive features.

However, the GX7 doesn't use either of these panels, instead making use of a field-sequential LCD. It uses around 780,000 dots that show red, green and blue information, one after the other, rather than using separate dots for each. The only drawback to this unique display method is called 'tearing,' in which colors appear to separate, causing red, green and blue edges left and right of high-contrast areas when panning rapidly. It was still present in the GX7, but not as bad as we've seen before, likely thanks to an increase in the refresh rate.

The EVF's optics give it an impressive 0.7x magnification (in 35mm camera terms) and we're pleased to see a menu option to turn down the sensitivity of the eye detection sensor, if you find it that you're frequently triggering it accidentally. Our only concern is the rather short 17.5mm eyepoint - which rarely works well, especially for wearers of glasses, in combination with high magnification viewfinders (it makes it hard to see the extreme edges of the frame without moving your eye).

Video

The only peculiar gap in the specifications relates to video - an area we wouldn't expect such an oversight from Panasonic. The GX7 provides plenty of movie control - offering PASM exposure control, a wide choice of frame rates and a choice of capture format - but it doesn't have an option for connecting an external microphone. So although you have a camera that can shoot 1080p video at 24 or 50/60 frames per second (depending on region), or genuine interlaced 60i in AVCHD mode, and at bitrates of up to 28Mbps for the 24p footage, you'll always be limited to using the internal stereo microphones or an external recorder.

Impressions of the body and controls

Shooting briefly with the Panasonic GX7 was enough to tell us that Panasonic has been paying attention in the 20 months since it created the GX1, which has resulted in a camera that should indeed appeal to enthusiasts.

When you first take hold of the Panasonic GX7, it's the rubber-coated grip that stands out. It provides a good hold on the camera, certainly better than that provided by the GX1. The magnesium-alloy body is flex-free, with no creaking or twisting, as we've come to expect. The front and mode dials are just stiff enough that we doubt they'll too often turn accidentally, yet they respond well when turned. The power switch is in good position for fast activation.

The Lumix GX7 offers plenty of ways to control settings, with four customizable Function buttons.

The rear control dial also serves as a button, by default bringing up exposure compensation in program and semi-auto modes (adjusting by +/- 5 stops in 1/3 stop increments). Turn the dial without pressing it and it adjusts program shift, or the pertinent parameter in shutter/aperture priority modes. When in the Quick Menu, it also adjusts parameters for the selected control.

Rather than leave you to go into a menu or remember a function button to switch between manual and autofocus, the GX7 features a physical switch surrounding the AF/AE lock button, a nice touch.

Panasonic's new Quick menu looks a lot like the one on Canon's touchscreen SLRs and works about as well, activated with the Fn1 button. Fn2, for its part, brings up the curves menu, adjustable by touch or dial, which allows you to change shadow and highlight settings, and create and save up to three custom curves settings.

Overall, we like what we see. The Panasonic GX7's feature set more appropriately addresses the current market by including important features its predecessors left out. It also includes quite a few new bells and whistles found on competing products, most of which should enhance the experience, hopefully without being too much. The EVF, sensor-shift IS, focus peaking, 1/8000 second shutter speed and extra control dial should please most enthusiasts looking for a little more in their mirrorless camera. We look forward to putting it through its paces when we get a sample in for a full review.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Real-world Samples Gallery

There are 32 images in the Panasonic GX7 samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Comments

The functionality (lightning toggle/image resizing) is brilliant! However I would like the scene to have some more color in it - especially colored textures/fabrics as it can really punish poor de-bayering and heavy-handed NR.

I agree the "Test Scene" is too dull. Hope you guys are taking into consideration the ability to capture the maximum dynamic range, colors, B&Ws possible in a controlled environment and the Test Scene pics are chosen accordingly. Honestly the Photo of Photos (Faces) is very dull and compromised already....DPR please rethink your Beta before finalizing as hundreds of Cameras' fate is based on what scene you use for critical reviews

It's a real test of 'change management' making this fundamental of a change. I join those who have said that they have come to rely on the old test scene - resolving "Paul Smith" on the watch is one of the things I look for. But change is not always a bad thing. Clearly this new scene reflects the improvements in cameras since that first scene was designed. So what I would keep (or replicate): the watch face for the detail of the lettering and material (and moderate contrast) of the "Paul Smith," I agree that blonde is better than brown hair, several textured fabrics: carpet, white loose wool, the yarn or torn carpet (earth tones, left of center), the pom-poms without glittery sheen, playing card (a ubiquitous object), paperclips (agree with others) & the robot cuz he's simultaniously cool & cute. Most importantly, how are you to deal with the backlog? Will you continue to shoot both scenes thru transition period? And BTW, where did you get the honey balsamic?

Someone in the m4/3 forum sent an E-PM2 to Chipworks for analysis. The final report haven't been published, but they did say that the markings on the sensor were consistent with a Sony chip.

Live MOS is in fact an Olympus trademark, which may not imply a specific sensor maker.As for the readout speed, Sony would have made a sensor that meets their customers' demands, possibly (but not necessarily) using Panasonic tech.The sensor performs noticeably better than previous m4/3 sensors, and is in fact on par with Sony APS-C, if one takes the smaller size into consideration.

Panasonic and Olympus don't base their businesses on cheating, at least not more than any of their competitors. Care to elaborate on that? I know that you talk alot about "F-stop cheating" and "ISO cheating", but that really is a misleading way to put it.

I don't know the truth, only I see no evidence and a lot of contradictions to call it Sony, some more reasons,

volume is too small for a dedicated sensor for Oly only, Sony's own NEX focus much slower, Sony's own NEX actually perform "worse" (ISO cheated), Oly said it vaguely in an unusual way (they meant to cheat).

Well, I don't know the truth either, of course, but I see no reason to doubt that it's a Sony sensor. Especially given that Olympus and Sony have stated that they will exchange technology, now that Sony has invested heavily in Olympus.As to the volume, Olympus use the sensor in their entire m4/3 line-up, and Panasonic most likely use the same sensor in GH3.But as long as we don't know for sure, your guess is as good as mine. We'll have to wait for the results from Chipworks.

Panasonic still use their own sensors in some cameras, so they haven't "gone Sony" completely. Canon make their own sensors, but they also have used Sony sensors in some compact cameras.Sure, the GH3 is their "flagship" model, but I see no problem with Panasonic using a Sony sensor in it. There is some evidence suggesting Olympus use a Sony sensor, and since GH3 has practically identical image quality in raw, it's most likely the same sensor.

And just because Nikon use sensors from Toshiba and Aptina, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have turned away from Sony completely. Nikon also designs their own sensors, which are manufactured by Renesas, and they have done so for many years, so they've never used exclusively Sony sensors.

We simply don't know the reasoning behind the choice of sensor maker; there could be both technological and business-related factors influencing the choice of one source over another. That goes for all camera components, by the way, not just the sensor.

If it's not already being planned, it would be nice to have the four zoomed-in boxes beside the big full-scene view, instead of below it. I'm pretty sure most of us are on widescreen monitors at this point, why not take advantage of the space?

It might also be a good idea to have all four zoomed boxes on a single horizontal line, rather than in a 2x2 grid. A lot of monitors are weak in their vertical viewing angles, making things lighter or darker depending on whether the image is at the top or bottom of the screen.

Your idea to have all four thumbnails in a row might make it hard to have the full scene view to the side.

However if there is a choice of:- full scene to side and 4x4 thumbnails beside it, or- full scene above/below with one row of thumbnailsI vote for one row of thumbnails.

I think you are correct about most people having wide screens. But some people don't like to view the browser full screen. I dislike sites that force me to view full screen and/or read crazy wide blocks of text.

So, I vote for full scene above and one row below. Not everyone has IPS.

I don't like photos of photos! Okay, I guess you're trying to show skin tones, but the test is limited by the reproduction of the original photo. Please concentrate on real objects. Your old test scene was good, and I liked imaging-resource's scene, with crayons and bottles and thread, even better. You need more color in this scene, and not just a particular shade of green.

Imaging-resource's red mosaic fabric is a very good one due to difficulties with red channel reproduction. However as for everything else keep in mind the resolution of a photo shot at a distance must be higher than the resolution of a crayon label and cardboard box! Only points of detail for them would be settled dust and frayed edges of cardboard!

Sad to say but now I am actually looking forward to the OM-D E-M1 already because it has on-sensor PDAF so I can actually photograph moving subjects without losing focus. Plus it will have 5-axis IBIS, weather sealing, and the always amazing Oly jpeg engine, and maybe another surprise or two. That said the GX7 is still an amazing camera that puts most DSLRs to shame.

The question still remains how different aspect ratios should be tested. For example, simply changing matching 4:3 and 3:2 formats by height to matching by width changes the comparative noise measurements by 1/3 stop.

Panasonic has absolutely horrible customer service. I have a GX1, love the camera but customer service is so bad I will not buy another Panasonic product again...I'm looking at getting the new Olympus at $999.

I like this new system .It seems to be very easy to use for comparisons between Cameras .

I wonder if something like this or even this same system could be used on some most desired lenses also , for comparisons without the use of the camera body , and instead using a standard body or digital back in order to eliminate the variability of the bodies and sensors .

When I need good stills I use my dslr's. I have a GH-2 for travel and when I want something smaller. I was bummed when I heard the GH-3 got bigger and heavier. Anxious to see how GX7 compares weight and size to GH-2. Could be good travel replacement for GH-2.

The arguments against were that they would be really small on this much larger scene and that it would make it impossible to shoot the old scene, if we needed to (if we needed to publish data for a camera for which we've not yet shot comparison cameras in the new scene, for instance).

I think I'd still prefer to have the old shock of blonde hair, rather than the new brown. I think the blonde is easier to judge for correctness of color - some give a greenish tinge to it, some a banana yellow, some a dull straw color, and others a nice, natural blonde.

Definitely need a curving 3D solid-color car/barrel/sphere. As the color shifts with reflection angles, different cams react differently to it -- with ugly artifacts in the worst cases. Yes, the blue VW was always my first go-to on your original scene because I like to shoot cars. [Ok, a bald-headed guy will not do.]

Secondly and finally, do something dynamic. I'd put a spinning black-white swirl wheel rotating at fixed rpm to get a feel for capture speed.

I don't know what ten percent exactly means here. But I wonder why you are talking about this subject AFTER seeing this. anyone who knows the old 16 MPixel sensor like I do with the Gh2 knows that such results are simply not obtainable for that sensor. Everything is better here. The colours, the noise, detail at high ISO. You name it. If you would have said that prior to these results, I would have shared the same stance.

I came to look at the GX7 and it will be my next cam. But the true revelation forme is indeed the Sony. I wonder how it gets such a low rating for higher ISO in DxOmark...It is really clearly better than my G1 for instance. Otoh: the detail seems to be lacking somay be some RAW noisereduction????

Edit?: went to the Dxo site and they tested the Sony. It scores very well but indeed high ISO NR is applied. Just like I thought. Still: very good result here. If Nikon used this one in the 1 that would be quite awesom for that system.

There isn't really anything surprising in the new tests. The FF is a clear winner, followed by NEX, followed by GX, followed by RX -- as you would expect the sensor size matters most. That is, if you are shooting raw. In jpeg, they all have different noise reduction, none is flawless.

I do not see how the NEX6 wins? Where exactly? I think the GX7 is the better actually. Very good, but also the Sony sensor is a year old so they needed to catch up. But they seem to have done a bit more than that.

This test pattern is optimized for testing lenses. (as evidenced by the patterns in the extreme corners and the mirroring of many items into the same position on diametrically opposing sides)

For testing cameras/sensors, I would like to see identical objects at a different distance/location, so they are not blurred by the lens in both locations - so we can see at least one of them in better sharpness and contrast.

IE: to test cameras/sensors, you need to get rid of the symmetry in the chart. (that's just unimaginative). instead of a mirror image in parts of the chart, alternate the objects between far from and closer to centre. that is why the old chart was better for comparing cameras.

Instead of pretending that you can disassociate the factor of the lens, I think the symmetry is fine the way it is particularly because it allows viewers with enough experience to understand some issues are indeed lens related. Besides if you want to remove the lens from the equation we could always post lenscap ISO long exposure shots and compare those.

The reality of the situation is people who care about IQ should stop caring about *sensor* only differences especially for the vast majority of printed and web mediums, and focus on *system* differences, particularly lens differences and AF performance or shutter/mirror vibration and stabilization, etc. This is a great test for what it is, but sensor testing has always been the low hanging fruit...and dangerously close to a fruitless pursuit as its almost meaningless in terms of end results...

What would be amazing is if they could get a setup on a glider, leave the camera engaged in AI-servo, and see AF tracking performance.

nice, works well. The bits in the corners are a welcome addition.Seems to be optimized for further increasing resolutions.Will still have to find my prefered comparison spots that I had in the old scene.It's the first time I say it: The whole test scene funtionality was one of the main reasons I got to love your camera review site and that made me always come back!

The one glaring problem that you're old test scenes have had is that the so-called "daylight" you were using was not true daylight balanced light. I've analyzed those RAW files, I know what you're balancing to and compensating for. There is too much correction on the green/magenta slider, which indicates the use of cheap bulbs.

Do you plan on fixing this and using either actual xenon flash bulbs exclusively or something more truer to daylight, such as KinoFlo 55 fluorescent bulbs?

I am hoping that DPR will use the latest available firmware updates when adding older cameras to the database.If not, then the whole exercise of changing the studio scene will be of little value.Will take some time to get used to.Karl

Yes, how does this affect a comparison with 'everything that went before' ? Especially since I will be comparing head to head with my GX1. I wonder if it's worthwhile to make a shot of the old scene and the new ...

The old scene comparisons will always be available, although not directly comparable to newer cameras. However, I am currently working through a sizable list of older cameras that are as widely representative as possible.

Dear DPR Team (Mr Britton, or Mr Butler, if you're around I have a question below...),

Print mode is a great addition.

I do have a question though, and I did not go through the 5 comment pages I admit, so apologies if it has already been answered:How does it work?My display has a certain pixel density, hence in photoshop, I have been obliged to scale the print mode function of that vertical and horizontal pixel density.So is it actual print size when I see it, or is it print size on a 72 or 90 or 144 pixel/inch display equivalent?

Then I second any comment about a piece of fabric or fine repetitive texture, it's good for judging apparent resolution and aliasing.

The 'Print' images are all scaled to a common size (or, more accurately, a common image height).

We looked at various fabrics but the distances we shot at meant it was hard to find any that produced any useful information at current resolutions (the weave is so small in this scene as to be invisible with current cameras).

The widget is a great addition. The ability to compare cameras is very helpful. I agree with one of the earlier comments asking for a bit of fabric or other material with some texture. And now I know what to do with my old Schilling notes

I am not sure whether this new studio scene is so good. For example those “grass” areas are placed too far away from the centre, so any smudging might be attributed to the poor lens performance in the corners rather than as a result of aggressive NR.

Close call, All 3, except RX100II (for the sensor size) are good. But there is now no real advantage of APS-C compared to M43. Oly EP5 still looks warmer and slightly sharper of all. But that's down to processing. Anything more, we are just 'nitpicking' here. All these camera's have come a long way even compared to the D200, D300, 40D & 50D (that I still have). Did they not take good Pics? I am not comparing to Full Frame at all.

That little patch of greenery is the most telling, as it seems to confuse the snot out of the NR routines. The Sony NEX shows artifacting, The GX7 shows smearing, the EP-5 handles it well with just some resolution loss, and the RX100 II smears it out as well, but not as bad as the GX7. Of course this is all at ISO 12800, a setting I have never used.

Still considering the sensor size and resolution... if I have to look this close to see a flaw consider me really impressed.

Of other Note: Greenery is cyan-ish on Sony, yellow-ish on the m4/3 which is consistent with my experiences with the same WB settings.

Pretty impress with the GX7 it's clearly showing nex 6 has no advantage even though its equipped with a larger sensor and EP5 don't look so hot against it. Even the RX100II is impressive. Would be the second panasonic camera I really like to own after the L1.

I'm not thrilled by the use of photographs (are they analog photos? Dye sub prints?) The use of difference races and sexes is good in principle, but they all have dark hair. In any event these are photos of photos, so it's not enormously informative.

Photos of Photos sounds pointless, until you realize its actually better than many other photos of man-made objects. How much detail is in a cardboard box of crayons? The label of a battery (which is also *printed*). The labels of wine labels? In fact these are all artifacts (man-made) limited by precision of some printing or moulding processes, etc. In fact wine labels are particularly pointless in that you now have to again contend with judging resolution on objects that may not fully be within intended DOF. So if you take a high resolution print, shoot it at a distance, it should be as valid as anything else. You think a coin is better? It's a machined item...how much 'resolution' and detail do you really thing it contains? Honestly the only real minute details most of these artifacts will contain will be the tiny particles of dust that settles on most of these items...

I'd like to see a Coke (okay, Pepsi too) bottle(s). Even though they may not subscribe to a "scientific" or "standard" red, it is red in the pop culture context we all recognize and associate. Even though the pop(ular) context is highly commercial, I'd still prefer its colors to colors of some robot. Tough call.

Eh, there's a few areas that show moire and aliasing (two sides of the same coin, really) in this image. The main one is probably the colored concentric circles in the bottom-right section (opposite the currency). The backs of the playing cards are good, too (Olympus is poor here). There's a bit in the black/white striped areas, too, especially ones that run diagonally.

Yep, but I would like something more like the http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DhSLI0100_NR_OFF.DNG.HTMthat have a nice red fabric good to test high ISO/noise reduction and a bottle of Samuel Smith good to test moiré and demosaicing algorithms...

As far is I can see GX7 is slightly better than Oly P5 and Sony Nex-6 in both raw and jpeg (I checked 200, 1600 and 3200 ISO). Canon 5dIII is much better from ISO 1600 up. Very impressive Panasonic. If the price drops 30% or more I'm interested. I would first like to see the EVF in action, though.

Btw: does anyone know which lenses were used?

I like the new studio scene, but I must say I miss the globe that was on the old one. That item was the best piece to compare differences.

I don't see all that much difference between the Oly and Pan [not what I was hoping for as I'm probably going to be buying the GX7].

The 5DIII beats them both by a good margin - but you'd be a fool not to expect that. What surprised me was that the Sony NEX didn't look any better even at low ISOs and probably a bit worse at higher sensitivities. All in all quite impressive performance from the new camera and the real-world high ISO samples actually look pretty useful for some things.

I don't see much difference either. Just a slight advantage for the GX7 you can see this on the banknote. The smaller text is easier to read on the GX7. Also, the others seem to have a hazy cast on them, maybe the GX7 is sharper for the lack of AA filter...

Does it lack an AA filter? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere. I was looking at the converging 'resolution' lines and there really isn't anything to choose between them in RAW. Seems to be a slight bluish cast on the RX-100 shots which muddies the results there a bit I feel.